Sponsored Links

By Debbie Schlussel**** SCROLL DOWN FOR IMPORTANT UPDATE ****
A few months ago, I told you about Sean the Plagiarist Hannity’s tight friendship with Neo-Nazi Hal Turner. The friendship was so tight that they spoke together from home, Turner had Vannity’s cell number, and he visited Sean at the FOX News “Hannity and Colmes” set with his son. Now, Sean Vannity is simultaneously denying ever knowing Turner and claiming he wasn’t his close friend. Both are lies.
But, last night, on “Vannity & Colmes,” Hannity welcomed yet another fellow brownshirt–anti-Semite Pat Buchanan, and congratulated Buchanan on the success of his new book, “Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War,” which essentially argues that we should have let more Jews cook and be transformed into lampshades, that we made a mistake fighting the Nazis in World War II. I guess he forgot that we won.

“Great Americans”: Let Freedom Ring for Nazis

As reader Joel writes:

I tuned in and the opening segment was Sean Hannity fawning over the jowly neo-fascist anti-Semite Pat Buchanan. I immediately turned it off. He made congratulatory reference to Buchanan’s revisionist book being on the Times bestseller list. When Hannity refers to Buchanan as “my friend” – I want to retch.

That Vannity would let Buchanan on his show with such a warm welcome is bad enough. But to congratulate Buchanan on his book’s success–a book that urinates on all the heroic American soldiers who gave their lives in what was ultimately a valiant triumph over Nazi evil–is sickening.
It’s doubly sickening when you consider that Pat Buchanan got out of serving in Vietnam because of an allegedly bad knee . . . so bad that after that, he regularly ran on the treadmill at very high speeds. He’s really not one to comment on WWII or anything related to war, since he’s basically a draft dodger.
I like some of Pat Buchanan’s views on domestic policy, but they are stained with the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic dye in which he has chosen to cast the world. Sorta like a delicious lollipop unfortunately forever coated in dung.
Sorry, Pat, but there’s a reason you failed three times to become President. And it’s not just that the only people who’d vote for you were old Jews in West Palm Beach who couldn’t figure out a butterfly ballot. Winston Churchill will always be one of history’s great Western statesmen for fighting the Nazis. And you will be forgotten.
In full disclosure, when Pat Buchanan had an MSNBC cable show, “Buchanan and Press,” I was booked frequently until the show was ultimately canceled. His liberal co-host, Bill Press, is a gem of a man, even though we disagree on most things.
When I was first scheduled to go on “B&P,” I told my father that I was going to make a comment about Buchanan’s anti-Semitism. We were scheduled to discuss Martha Burk’s obnoxious insistence that Augusta National, a private club, admit female members. I was going to say that I believe private clubs should admit whomever they choose and that I have no prob, for example, when golf clubs admit anti-Semites like Pat Buchanan. But my dad told me not to, that it wouldn’t be classy, and I obliged.
Sadly, that didn’t stop Pat Buchanan from showing his Jew-hatred right off the bat. He introduced me as “Debbie Schlussel, a conservative . . . I mean, NEO-CON . . . NEO-Conservative.” In case you don’t know, that’s code for “She’s a JOOOOOOOOO.” I was pissed. But I could hear my Dad’s admonishments in the back of my mind and didn’t respond to that, to my continued regret.
I’d had my previous experiences with Pat Buchanan. In college, when I interned for Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke, then both on “The McLaughlin Group,” Buchanan was also on (as he still is). He would constantly attack Israel whenever I was in the Green Room, trying to start up with me. When my late father and my then-little brother (he was nine years old at the time) came to the set on a tourist visit to Washington, Pat Buchanan asked them how their “money is doing in the Bank . . . the WEST Bank.” Haha, funny. Did you see that?–Pat Buchanan simultaneously did a double entendre and an anti-Semitic reference about Jews’ alleged obsession with money. Whatta talent. A regular fascist Don Rickles (just kidding, Don).
It was an interesting juxtaposition: My dad and brother making an innocent introduction to Buchanan and getting chided about Jews, Israel, and money, especially since Buchanan–in one of his many rants against American Jews and Israel–made the argument that “guys named Leroy Brown” fought and died in Vietnam and not Jews. Here was my Dad who, when he was drafted during the Vietnam War, not only served in the Army, but was very proud of it. And Pat Buchanan–well, you know, it’s that bad knee. Guys named Leroy Brown, but not Pat Buchanan.
This is Sean Hannity’s good friend. This is the man who thinks America should have let another 6 million Jews disintegrate up through the smokestacks and another 5 million gentiles, too–which is basically the heavily implied if unsaid thesis of Buchanan’s book. Even Neville Chamberlain wasn’t this outrageous. He tried to appease the Nazis. Buchanan writes a revisionist “The Way We Were” tome against our defeat of them.
And all of this got gushing global TV exposure on FOX News, last night, thanks to fellow Brownshirt Sean Hannity. Even Eva Braun is laughing in hell. Or drooling. And Hitler is now wishing the half-German Buchanan was born much earlier.
Vannity, You’re a “Great American.” [High on the sarcasm meter, folks.] Heil Hitler. And Herr Buchanan, too.
***
I’m no fan of anti-Israel scumbag Christopher Hitchens, but like the broken clock that he is, one of his two times right per day is this Newsweek article he wrote against Buchanan’s new book.**** UPDATE, 06/22/08: Reader Joel has some great criticisms of the Buchanan book and demonstrates Buchanan’s absolute ignorance and naivete about history. And this is just based on a glance of the book, not a complete reading:

The man is totally ignorant of History. The Holocaust began on Kristallnacht (you can make a case that it began on April 1, 1933 with the German boycott of Jewish stores). By the time of the Wannsee conference in Jan. 1942, there were already around a million dead Jews thanks to the Einsatzgruppen and the ghettoization in Poland. Buchanan wrote that had Britain not gone to war that only the Jews of Poland and the USSR would have been killed and that the rest of the Jews of Western Europe would have been spared. That is an absurd statement.
He also claims that the Holocaust could be dated to Jan. 20, 1942 (the Wansee conference) neglecting the fact that the extermination of the Jews began with the invasion of Poland in September 1939 with the mobile killing squads and that by the time of the Wansee conference Jews had already been gassed by mobile killing vans at Chelmno in December 1941 and that the Einsatzgruppen had murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews in the USSR.
He sees the Holocaust as being a result of the declaration of war by Britain and France not as a Nazi goal in and of itself. The commitment the Nazis had to exterminate the Jews of Europe, no matter what the military cost, would be evident in the Spring of 1944 during the deportation of the Jews of Hungary to Auschitz-Birkenau – the Germans used rolling stock and transportation systems that were desperately needed to supply their armies on the Eastern Front – but genocide came first.
Buchanan is not a historian – he is dangerous because he has a little bit of knowledge and is talented (but wicked) polemicist. I suppose that he concedes that the Holocaust took place is a sign of some advancement for him because he once wrote of “Holocaust fantasies of group martyrdom” and that “the diesel fuel at Treblinka could not have killed anyone.” (His fellow paleocon [DS: and Jew-hater], Joseph Sobran has spoken at the revisionist Institute for Historical Review as well as former Congressman Pete McCloskey.)
Buchanan views–in his book and in his writings–Adolf Hitler essentially the same way that Obamaites such as Brzezinski, Scowcroft, James Baker, Condi Rice, Samantha Power, McPeak view Hamas and Hezbollah – as a hard headed realist. In his book he makes great play of the fact that Hitler did not demand the return of the territories Germany lost to the West in 1918 to France and Denmark.
In Buchanan’s world, Hitler is a rational Anglophile whom Churchill foolishly scorned.

82 Responses

“No Pasaran!: Don’t confuse American Jews with Israeli Jews. Many of the former have had their thinking twisted backwards by their liberal friends to the point of taking positions that are deadly to the survival of Israel.”
Sorry Arius, but why is this directed at me?

Now while I could personally care less about someones religious affiliations as I have stated my feelings on ALL religions here before. I am getting just a little tired of all the “get the jew” conspiracy theories. I know this is going to offend people but ya know what put your grown-up underwear on and get over it.
What makes the Jews so special on the mass victim front? If History is right didn’t Stalin Kill 20 million people? didn’t Chairman Mao kill around 60 Million ( ten times the amount of Jews killed by Hitler?). What about what the Japanese did in China you know “the Rape of Nanking”? oh wait they were not Jewish so History has ignored that. Don’t believe me? ask any school kid if he knows what happened in China during WWII then ask the same about the Jews and Germany see which one they know about. Where are the “Holocaust Museums” for all those people?

Given Sean Hannity’s penchant for ripping off other people’s work, I’d bet Pat Buchanan did the same. I’ll bet his book made liberal use of David Irving’s “Churchill’s War”. As you know, David Irving is a Holocaust Deniar and was exposed in a U.K. court as having falsified empirical historical evidence about World War II.
One has to wonder what anyone in the news media sees in Pat Buchanan. He’s washed up!

Dear Debbie,
I too have some serious problems with Pat Buchanan. I blame him for bringing down the
first Bush administration and the onset of
the Clinton years. Where would we be today
if he had just kept his mouth shut?
Well, we cannot undo history and PB’s rewrite of it will last as long as you might assume Hannity’s and Pat’s reputations.
Let me put my head in the tiger’s mouth now by saying you are not without some of these blemishes yourself. The way you go off half cocked every time someone uses some your writings puzzles me. The issues you write about need to get a hearing and the dangers noted are more important than your vanity. There is
too much resistance from the one voice MSM to be
fighting amongst ourselves.
Sean Hennity, regardless what slights you may
hold against him, is one of us. I wish someone
would stop him from the childish over use of the
STOP (fill in the blank) EXPRESS! And his
screeners should tell every caller to stop calling him a “great American” and tell him to
stop parroting the phrase right back at them like
some kind of moron, but I digress. Your endless
criticism of Sean and others in the business or a
part of the Bush administration make you seem
egotistical and as deconstructive of what we
conservatives are trying to accomplish as Pat
Buchanan and I don’t like to see that in you.
[GWB: CAN I PLEASE HAVE THE KEYS TO YOUR HOME AND ACCESS TO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, SO THAT I CAN ROB YOU BLIND? AFTER I GET CAUGHT, I’M SURE YOU WILL ALLOW THAT I’M “ONE OF US” AND ALL WILL BE OKAY. RIGHT? SEAN VANNITY IS NOT ONE OF “US”. HE IS A FRAUD AND A RIP-OFF ARTIST, WHO WOULD BE A LIBERAL TOMORROW IF IT WOULD MAKE HIM POPULAR. HE IS AN EMPTY VESSEL. HE IS A SCHMUCK, AND IT IS SO SAD THAT YOU THINK THAT HIS STEALING AND THEFT ARE OKAY BECAUSE YOU MISTAKENLY SEE HIM AS “ONE OF US.” HE DOESN’T SPEAK FOR ME. NOR MOST CONSERVATIVES.
AS FOR CRITICIZING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, ARE YOU JOKING? BUSH IS A LIBERAL REPUBLICAN WHO HAS DONE MORE TO HARM THIS COUNTRY AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAN ANYONE IMAGINABLE. DO YOU SUPPORT HIS IMMIGRATION NON-ENFORCEMENT AND OPEN BORDERS? HIS ISLAMO-PANDERING? INCREDIBLE. IF THAT IS WHAT “ONE OF US” IS, COUNT ME OUT. DS]

Aside from Joel’s penultimate paragraph, which was an unfortunate and unnecessary deviation from his learned response, Joel effectively and succintly puts Buchanan in his place. And that ridiculous comment from the other poster about FDR dragging his poor grandfather to fight in a European war? “America First” was a nationwide, vocal isolationist movement in the 1930s. Hitler had powerful “useful idiots” in Joe Kennedy and Lindburgh. Politically, FDR was knew he could not commit American forces to a shooting war against Germany. All of that changed after Pearl Harbor AND Hitler’s declaration of war against hte U.S. Where did the opposition go? They weren’t rounded up and jailed. These isolationists were not timid people; they would not have been cowed by public opinion. The fact is that once Hitler declared war on us ALL Americans knew it would be American shipping sunk by U-Boats, American interests abroad seized, American citizens killed. Hitler WAS a ba*tard and the ba*tard now had his sights on us.
But for reasons I can never understand, we live in a world where the truth can never really be the truth; there must be some other, hidden, “real” truth which gives lie to the former. So now the idiot magazine “Newsweek,” servicing its dozen or so readers, posits that maybe today’s politicians shouldn’t dismiss Neville Chamberlain so readily. NO. DISMISS CHAMBERLAIN. As Tip O’Neil said, “All politics is local.” What is true for the neighborhood bully is true for the international thugs: if you do not stand up to them – and early and often – they will accept whatever you offer them and STILL break into your house to steal your silver and rape your daughter.
Finally (I GOTTA get to work!), I know that Mr. Hannity’s plagerism of your work and research has set you off against him, but however anyone’s eyes are opened to this clown is jake by me. His slavish affection for the serial adulterer Newt Gingrich and that horrible Karl Rove* did it for me. It’s . . . it’s . . . unbelievable!
*Hannity calls Rove “The Architect.” Well, the political genius that Karl Rove is succeeded in achieving little of note when the Republicans had the House, Senate and White House, AND cost the Republicans the House and Senate, which they’d worked decades to try to regain. Some architecture.

When the American people, the press and the government are all behind something, there is nothing we can’t do. I guess the last time was WWII.
I wonder where the pipsqueaks would have been December 8, 1942?
It is not for nothing they are called the greatest generation.
Joe B.

Anonymous1, “The Protestants tend to be anti-Israel in a mistaken left wing kind of knee jerk way, but I think the Catholic Church has been a real incubator for anti-Semitic bullies.”
I’m not Catholic so I won’t speak of that.
But, as for Protestants, I disagree, at least as far as most conservative Protestants I know. John Hagee is a very well known very pro Israel Protestant, and I think Jerry Falwell was very pro Israel. I really can’t think of one single high profile Protestant leader who is anti Israel. But, I don’t pay much attention to the left wing nuts, so I’m sure there are some on that side.
I don’t have any hard numbers, but most Protestants seem pretty conservative to me, and most it seems to me are very pro Israel due to the belief that the Israelis are God’s chosen people. After all, Jesus was a Jew. And, don’t forget, the Muslims hate Christians, too.

Debbie-
You always make good points. Your Tim Russert piece had to be said, and you did it! Great job!
I do not listen to Sean Hannity anymore. He just irritates me, but I do agree that he is on the right side of this political mess that we are in, and in that regard, I think you are harsh on him due to the fact that you are harsh on Catholics in general.
Just my opinion.

Re Mfee’s comment:
I know this is going to offend people but ya know what put your grown-up underwear on and get over it.
What makes the Jews so special
Boy, they’re really out over this post — the above comment is a combination of stupidity and anti-semitism.
First, although this blog is against all these types of mass murder, there has been a special emphasis on anti-semitism & Israel. Different blogs emphasize different things. If you want a blog emphasizing something else, go to a different blog.
Second, none of these types of mass murder should be counterposed. You do not have to be against one vs the other. All should be condemned, and complaining that one is emphasized and not the other, invariably leads to the conclusion that mfee doesn’t consider the Holocaust important. A Holocaust supporter who belittled Stalinist mass murder would be subject to similar criticism.
Third, there was not an intentional genocide campaign against, for example, Chinese. Mao did not say he had to irradicate Chinese from the world the way Hitler intended to completely irradicate Jews from the world. Stalin is a poor example to bring up; most competent authorities agree that if he hadn’t died when he did in 1953 there would have been mass murder of Jews in the Soviet Union similar to that which occurred under Hitler. The Doctor’s Plot and similar outrages were a prelude to this.
Most importantly, there are not active campaigns today to eliminate Chinese on a mass basis, or to kill millions of people in Russia (once more, though, leaving aside the constant threats against Jews in Russia), but there are definitely active campaigns to kill huge numbers of Jews. This is clear to any objective person looking at the Mideast. There is antisemitism against Jews in the West on a huge basis, both from the Buchananites on the right, and many blacks & their allies, and other left-wingers on the left, with the ‘mainstream’ shrugging their shoulders.

cf, I didn’t know that about fox. Figures, their true colors are showing through.
gw bramhall, you do not cover for your brother who is doing bad things. You chastise them. You also expect them to change their ways and if they don’t, they aren’t one of you.
The whole one of you, circle the wagons if one of your own does something wrong is a liberal concept that puts responsibility on others and not the offender. Conservatives own up and take care of things.

OK, here’s my theory: Pansy Buchanan is a tormented gay with a twisted psyche. As far as I can tell he has a marriage of convenience–married to some frowsty blond secretary. No children for Catholic Pat. He’s either shooting blanks or he’s gay. Just calling it as I see it.
Pat, you can come out of the closet now. You’re old enough.

Where do these boneheads like Niall come from?
CAMERA (devoted to accurate Mideast reporting) has links to a number of articles refuting the academic demagogues Walt and Mearsheimer.http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=189&x_article=1105
Apparently boneheads like Niall can’t read. Buchanan and the rest of these scum have done more than just ‘be critical of Israel’. They have now stooped to basically overt support of Hitler’s foreign ‘policies’ of aggression and the destruction of other countries. Findley is an anti-semitic hack from the 80s, a disgraced former Congressman who has made the ridiculous claim that US foreign policy towards the Mideast is made in Israel. Sure, like refusing to do anything about Iran, just what israel has always wanted.
The factual lies of Niall’s blog can be seen re the reference to the “lae” Ariel Sharon, who, although in a coma, is alive.
This trash belongs in a cesspool somewhere, not on this blog.

Debbie,
This column strikes me as shrill. A person can disagree with Israel and even have complaints about Jews in general and not be “anti Semitic”. Even though Jimmy Carter makes me want to puke, I think he has a legitimate opinion about Israel that I happen to disagree with. I don’t think he is an anti Semite, just an ass. By the same token, Jews who are very powerful in entertainment and write many TV shows and movies that are very demeaning to Christians are not necessarily anti Christian. They write about what they know.
Regarding Jews, most are socially liberal and since they are high achievers they have influence both in business, politics and entertainment far beyond their 2% or so of the population. Is it any surprise that they always seem to be leading the pack against traditional values be it the ACLU, NARAL, PAW etc.. These are facts. I am very tempted to rant against those damn anti Christian Jews but I have come to realize they simply have a different view. I only ask that they be respectful of the rest of us.
I was once at Hal Tuner’s site. He brings up some of the very points I just raised but I agree with you that he crosses the line. I don’t think there is a Jewish conspiracy at all however it is my opinion that Jews and most others who have power are quick to forget to respect others who share a different view.
I think Jews are a great asset to our nation and the world. I’m with you on Israel. This is for all the Jews who read this column. I can honestly say that I feel that Jews disrespect and denigrate my beliefs in their comments movies, legislation, politics, organizations and Supreme Court opinions. Take it for what it is. I want to love you guys but you make it really hard.
Label me however you want but this is an honest opinion from a gentile who gave enough of a shit to take the time to write this.

If someone wants to read an insightful book on WWII that goes beyond what is covered in 99% of the books on the topic, I highly recommend RISING ’44 – The Battle for Warsaw by Norman Davies.
It does paint a much more critical view of both Roosevelt and Churchill, without going absolutely INSANE like Pat’s “book.”
Gentiles for a free and prosperous Israel!

Samoyed’s comments seem a little murky at best. After writing about liberal Jews this person then says “I want to love you guys but you make it really hard”. The posts to this column aren’t from the liberal Jews referred to in the rest of Samoyed’s comments. What’s going on?

Murky? Then let me clear things up.
The first topic I address is this: people can disagree with Israel or complain about Jews and NOT be anti Semetic
The Second is this: The majority of Jews are disrespectful of Christian beliefs and values as evidenced by their movies, plays, books, decisons of the 3 Jewish supreme court justices and damn near every liberal group in the US such as the ACLU, PAW, NARAL, NOW etc… Yes I realize that about 10% of you are conservative or perhaps Republican but that is a small minority.
In summary what I am saying is that Jews have many good points but in general they tend to be pushy, condescending of gentiles, agressively liberal and quick to play the “anti Semite card”.
I’ll end with an anecdote. When the “Passion” movie was out many Jews freaked out and made hundreds of anti Christian statements. Our local Rabbi actually said in the local paper that the movie was anti Semetic and just “based on a made up story anyway”. Nice, so under pressure he denegrates the beliefs of about 250 million people in the US. The rabbi’s statement was condescending and biggoted and very revealing. You Jews tend to be a hard people to love.

Samoyed, you have certainly cleared things up. Anti-semitic to the core. First, who are the three Jewish Supreme Court justices? I am aware of two, Ginsberg & Breyer. Whoever you think of as the third is not Jewish, and you are misclassifying someone to fit a preconceived stereotype as you undoubtedly are in your comments about other influential “Jews”. Many are about as Jewish as your third Jewish Supreme Court justice.
Being pushy and aggressively liberal. That was the excuse used through the 60s and beyond to exclude jews from universities, jobs, and housing. Aggressively liberal. Last I heard this was a free country. Do you feel the same way about other aggressively liberal groupings? What about the Catholic Church’s support of open borders? Or those of Spanish ancestry? Should I make generalizations about all Cahtholics because of that? What about the bigotry and anti-Americanism of the National Council of Churches? Should I say that all Protestants are anti-American because of the NCC’s pro-Communist and pro-Terrorist positions?
Are blacks aggressively liberal? Isn’t it bigotry to condemn a group because its members are overrepresented in some philosophy or cause you disagree with?
Plenty of Christians write shows or publish books that are anti-Christian. Those written by Jews are deplorable, but they are not writing them as representatives of the Jewish religion.
Your comments are just as conspiratorial as those of Buchanan and the other riff-raff. You make comments about a few elite Jews, or people you think are Jews, who are inevitably a minority in their fields, and then you generalize about the whole population of Jewish people. This is out-and-out anti-semitism. It is incredible to think that a majority or even a substantial minority of the Jewish population would condone or identify with attacks on Christianity. This type of conspiratorial generalization certainly is on a par with Buchanan.

Two other comments re Samoyed. My comment about ‘those of Spanish ancestry’ was meant to refer to the support of many of Spanish ancestry for open borders & I ask the question, should I condemn those of Spanish ancestry because of their disproportionate support of open borders? I condemn the position, not the people & not their Church.
More disturbing is the implication in both Samoyed letters that the Jews bring the condemnation of the ‘rest of society’ upon themselves because of their pushiness, inappropriately liberal positions, etc. etc, whatever the catch-phrase of the day happens to be, & Samoyed as an erstwhile friend of the Jews is providing a warning that Jews should act differently to gain the good will of everyone else.
The people I think of when I hear something like this are Father Coughlin or the Ku Klux Klan. In the 30s, Father Coughlin, a leading fascist of his day constantly misrepresented himself as someone wanting to help the Jews, but he couldn’t do it unless they discarded their undesirable traits, like, coincidentally, pushiness, support of the New Deal, and so on. The Ku Klux Klan, of course, masqueraded as the friend of blacks, if only they knew their place and stopped agitating for civil rights, being able to sit in front of the bus or at lunch counters.

Correction: You are right. Only 2 Supremes are Jewish.
Give me a break! I bring up valid points and you resort to playing the anti Semite card. That’s weak. Yes there are other pushy liberals in this country but they are not as well educated or powerful as Jews. I expect more from a group that is highly intelligent and with a history of persecution. As I said before, every time there is a group assaulting my values it is usually led by someone who is Jewish. (not just someone with a Jewish name) At the risk of sounding like Hal Turner: The 2 Supremes, David Geffin, Alan Dershwitz, Jerry Springer, Gloria Steinem, most heads of the ACLU chapters, Norman Lear and historically Freud and Karl Marx. The list is endless. Both had really great ideas that screwed up a few generations of people. (no, Jews have not started all the wars Mel Gibson)
Yes we have freedom of expression here so people can express their views. By the same right I can observe what I see and resent the aspect of Jewish culture that denegrates Christians. Try taking some lessons from Michael Medved and Dennis Prager. Both are Jews who show a little respect for other religions while remaining devoutly Jewish.
cf said:”Samoyed as an erstwhile friend of the Jews is providing a warning that Jews should act differently to gain the good will of everyone else”.
How about “less disrespectfully” rather than “differently” because you are pissing a lot of people off like me who generally like/admire Jews but have legitimate issues with them. People like me were 100% behind Israel when Hamas/Hezbolla killed/kidnapped Israeli soldiers and then were lambasted for bombing Lebanon. Me anti Semetic? Kiss my a$$.
Speak up all you want but start showing the same respect and tolerance you demand from others to me and others with traditional values.

Medved and Praeger are at best phony conservatives. They supported, to one degree or another, Harriet Miers, the Dubai Ports deal, but in a way its apropos that you mention Medved. One of the things that degrades his program is the inordinate amount of time he spends with kooks and conspiracy theorists. True he challenges them, but there is an overlap, as you, too are a conspiracist.
You focus on the Jews who allegedly are undermining your values. Someone who wasn’t an antisemite would focus, instead on the political positions of those he disagreed with, treating their Jewishness (most are not even religious) as a non sequitor. But not you. To you it is a key characteristic, and when you’re challenged, you lapse into profanity, and disregard most of the arguments I made. The $ signs in your last word are symptomatic of your anti-Semitism; Jews and money.
It is demagogic to suggest that Jewish liberals are better educated or more powerful than other liberals. Do I need to mention the Kennedys, Obama, Dodd, Biden, etc. etc.? Yes, you do sound like Turner, and a qualifying phrase does not change that. You have no legitimate issues. If you have confidence in your political positions, advocate them & try to convince people, but if you use the alleged power — on a virtually conspiratorial basis from a religious cabal — of your adversaries as an excuse for the prevelance of positions you disagree with, you are at best an anti-Semite. In other words, Jews are pushy unless they agree with your politics. Coughlin also said that some of his best friends were Jews. Farrakhan said he admired Jews. People today won’t be taken in by this kind of gibberish.

S, BTW one other remark. I don’t know if it is problem with your reading comprehension skills or your thought processes or both, but you cite Medved and Praeger’s respect of other religions and ask why I can’t be more like them. I said nothing attacking Christianity, and made just the opposite point. Unless you mean that Medved & Praeger essentially support illegal immigration, and, of course, would not criticize the Catholic Church for its support of amnesty. I do criticize the Church for that, but do not criticize Catholics themselves, and I also recognize the positive things the Catholic Church does today, and has done historically.

Finally, you included Freud in your list of undesirables along with Dershowitz. Freud was in no way left-wing; feminists such as Steinem whom you mention were very critical of Freud. Marx renounced Judaism, and your citation of him shows that you look at Judaism on a racial basis, not a basis of ‘ideas’. Otherwise why cite someone who, himself, became a sworn enemy of everything judaism represents, including the idea of Zionism?

Samoyed wants to “have his cake and eat it too”. He/she wants to complain about Jews and not be considered an anti-Semite at the same time. Jews don’t need friends like you, Samoyed. You’re nothing but a Father Coughlin loving, Patsy Buchanan wannabee. Get lost.

You illustrate many of my points. Since I disagree with you, I must be an anti Semite. That sounds like an Al Sharpton tactic.
I don’t like Jews like you who blame everyone else except yourself for *some* of the anti Jewish sentiment. You have said nothing to refute the fact that Jews in general are contemptuous of Christian values and liberal Jews have been at the forefront of damn near every liberal cultural movement in this country from communism, to the sexual revolution, abortion, gay marriage, higher taxes, more welfare etc.. Most of these things have had a net negative effect of society. That’s why I resent Jews pushing their beliefs on others via any means they can. It’s not fair and it’s obnoxious. You are 2% of the population yet 30% of the opinion in the US. I understand support for Israel but what right do you hve to impose your secular/liberal social beliefs on the rest of us?
I’ll open my mouth every time I see some liberal asshole walking all over my beliefs and if that ass is Jewish I will NOT be guilted into refraining from disagreeing.
Finally you say that if I was trully not an anti Semite then I would focus on liberals in general and not Jews per se. I see Debbie and the people who comment here condeming Muslims as a group all the time. Using your logic I suppose this site should simply focus on terrorism and not mention that almost all of them are Muslims.
I wonder. If the behavior of Jews has zero to do with Anti Semetism, why do people worldwide seem to resent them? (I’m not talking about Madrassa students) I think it’s for the reasons I gave.
some notes:
**Jews are both a race and a religion although the vast majority are non religious.
**Typing A$$ is a substitute for typing ASS. You must be paranoid.
**Freud and Marx are simply examples of influential Jews, not Zionists. Both were atheist. Freud was anti female so of course Steinem hates him. His ideas have been largely dimsissed by modern psychology, that after screwing up generations of people.

S, you are following the same anti-Semitic methodology I spoke of earlier. You said there are 3 Jews on the Supreme Court. Who are they? How do you know I’m Jewish? You appear to term everyone as Jewish who you don’t like. Christina values are themselves contradictory. There are Evangelical Protestants who some Jews agree with and some don’t. Many Jews have a great deal of respect for them, based primarily, but not exclusively on their support for Israel. The National Council of Churches has very different values. Again some Jews symphatize and others don’t.
“People worldwide seem to resent them”. Here we go with the anti-semitic canards.
Jews are more liberal than conservative, and have participated disproportionately in some of the movements you mention, but only an anti-Semite would condemn the Jewish religion on the basis of that or say as you have repeatedly that Jews are pushy. A fair-minded person would recognize that numerically, in all the movements you mentioned, non-Jews far outnumber Jews.
Your phony statistics and unsupported generalizations are symptomatic of right-wing rabble-rousers all through history. Hitler said the same thing; a small minority with disproporte influence, all the bad ideas, underrate the complexity of Freud.
It doesn’t matter of Marx renounced Judaism. He was born Jewish so Judaism is bad. You gave yourself away when you said that Jews are a race. Do you believe in phrenology too? Just like the rest of your fascist scum. Jews are reponsible for anti-Semitism. Go back in your lousy hole with Buchanan, Farrakhan, Turner and the rest of the crud.

Your other nutty comment is the comparison of this site’s vigilance against Muslims with your attitudes about Jews. Muslims have resorted to violence and have tried to force the rest of the world to conform to their values. The things you mentioned, taxes, gay marriage, feminism, are not part of the Jewish religion. You are too prejudiced to mention that the Jewish people who are the most religous, i.e. the Orthodox Jews, are, on the whole, the least supportive of these things. But again, why let facts bother you? Blame a religion for things that people born into the religion, & unlike Muslims, constitute a small minority of the movements you mention, but, like Hitler, and like Father Coughlin, you know the real truth, the real conspirators. I see why you like Medved. He is just about the only talk show host who gives air time to lunatics like you.

Yes my opinions are clearly those of a lunatic as opposed to your well thought out, dispassionate views.
Again I ask you, what is the basis of anti Semetism if indeed as you say all of my general assertions about Jews are completely baseless? What is it? Your smell? The small round hat? Is everyone but Jews simply stupid and bigotted? I’m interested to hear your explanation as to why in the hell there is worldwide anti semetism outside of arab and muslim countries. Please educate me since you seem to think Jews are without fault, respectful of other religions are NEVER denegrate Christians.

Ms. Schlussel, you, as an ethnically conscious Jew, (if you were not, why would you care so deeply?) are in no moral position to condemn those of European descent for our concern with what is and is not good for our people. You cannot, without rank hypocrisy, deny us what you would reserve for you and your kinsman.
I am a racially conscious White man; in fact a White Nationalist. I wish only to preserve my own heritage and yes, that includes my genetic heritage (gasp!). You, as a Zionist, support an ethno-state expressly dedicated to the preservation of your own people. I, and Buchanan, want nothing more.
Buchanan is absolutely right in his view that WWII was a disaster for the White race. Is this not self-evident? It was a true fratricidal war; around fifty million Europeans were killed.
You, understandably, view WWII as a victory over and the utter smashing of the forces of anti-Semitism. But, perhaps, you can forgive myself and Buchanan for not viewing this historical event (yes, that is precisely what it is, and no law should proscribe free inquiry and scholarly research into said) exclusively through that lens.
You see, we also lament our dead.

Sorry, a few points: 1) Mel Gibson is a vicious antisemite and “The Passion” is viciously antisemitic like its director.
‘Nuff Said.

2) One can criticize Israel’s policies without being antisemitic, but the assumption of antisemitism is right 90 plus percent of the time. I have a real SIMPLE definition of anti-semitic thought and action: any action, or idea, that’s going to increase the possibility of my kids or me dying because I’m Jewish. Most criticisms of Israel I’ve seen meet that simple test.

3) I’m a former VEEP Of YAF. I’m no Liberal. Reagan was a pansy on foreign policy.

4) I don’t care if you “love me” or not. Threaten my kids, and there will be hell to pay. I’m an expert on anatomy and pain.